Blog

Increasing geopolitical tensions have led to commitments from the UK Government to significantly expand defence spending, a move that will present commercial opportunities to the civil engineering sector.

The government’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR), published in June, set out how it plans to increase spending on the military in a way which benefits the whole economy.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “We must drive a new partnership with industry and a radical reform of procurement, creating jobs, wealth and opportunity in every corner of our country – this is the ‘defence dividend’ which we are determined to seize.”

The SDR acted as the centrepiece of policy communication from the government, explaining how it hopes to deploy public money to upgrade and expand the country’s defences.

A range of other policy announcements, strategies and reviews have been shared in recent months which speak to specific areas of defence. One example was the Defence Industrial Strategy, which set out how the country will provide the infrastructure needed for “a new era of UK defence”.

The Defence Industrial Strategy was published shortly after the UK, along with Nato allies, agreed to increase overall spending on defence from 2.7% to 5% of GDP by 2035.

Thirty percent of the allocated budget is to be directed to “security-related spending,” which would include non-defence projects like upgrades to transport and utilities networks, but which are critical to enabling the overall expansion of the military estate.

Upgrading existing assets

While civil engineers have worked on military projects for as long as the military has existed, the expansion in works required will mean more civil engineers without experience in defence will be required to deliver on the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD’s) ambitions.

Tight controls around the details of upgrades to bases mean many won’t know what such upgrades would involve.

“Upgrades generally fall into two groups,” according to WSP strategic growth director for defence and security Amy Draper. She says the first group comprises “capability-driven works to host a new capability. For example, the extensive waterfront works that supported the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers at HMNB Portsmouth, or airbase upgrades to accommodate fifth-generation aircraft, such as the works at RAF Marham.”

Draper says the second group of upgrades is covered by “lifecycle replacement and refurbishment, such as renewal of airfield operating surfaces, utilities and substantial replacement or refurbishment of accommodation”.

Jacobs director of European defence and security Christian Knutson agrees with Draper that upgrades can cover the construction works to support new capabilities, or modernisation works, and sometimes will include upgrading counter-terrorism measures.

A written ministerial statement made to the House of Commons by Ministry of Defence minister for the armed forces Louise Sandher-Jones on 8 September said the government is “looking at options to further enhance the physical infrastructure in place at its sites,” and pilots of upgrades to physical infrastructure would be carried out at RAF Coningsby and RAF Waddington.

A government source told NCE that the upgrades are planned because security and infrastructure at the UK’s military sites have been underfunded for many years.

Knutson says the MOD is looking to make upgrades across its estate, with a particular focus on improved security of supply from utilities like energy – on and off-grid – and water, as well as better access to communication networks.

“It’s been said that the oil of today is data, so being able to have robust and capable communication systems is important,” he says.

“Upgrading your services could provide you with not only the capacity you need to support that, but also the redundancy, in case those systems need to have secondary or tertiary backups.”

Commenting on the types of works included in upgrade programmes, AtkinsRéalis project delivery director John McGlynn says: “Upgrades at existing military sites typically focus on modernising ageing infrastructure to meet evolving operational and human performance needs. This includes major complex infrastructure to accommodate new platforms and systems.

“For example, the new nuclear-powered attack submarine programme Aukus [denoting an alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States] will require new docking and berthing systems to be constructed on existing Royal Navy operational and maintenance facilities at Clyde and Devonport.

“Upgrades on these busy operational sites will need to be undertaken without impacting ongoing operations. Upgrades will therefore need to be closely planned, organised and delivered.”

Both Draper and McGlynn say the upgrades envisioned under the Strategic Defence Review, including at AWE, naval bases and under Aukus, mark a shift in the scale of upgrades.

“The UK’s Strategic Defence Review signals a generational shift in defence infrastructure scale and ambition,” McGlynn says.

“Programmes like SSN-Aukus and GCAP (Global Combat Air Programme) reflect long-term investment in sovereign capabilities, demanding expansive upgrades across shipbuilding, nuclear stewardship and digital command systems.”

The GCAP is a joint project between the UK, Italy and Japan to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet.

“The scale and complexity of these initiatives go beyond routine maintenance, requiring infrastructure that is future-proof, secure and strategically aligned,” McGlynn adds.

Draper says the “SDR and related commitments provide clearer priorities and a scale of investment that is a step-change for the sector”.

Design considerations

The defence and civil engineering experts say a “blend” of civil engineering capabilities are required for the upgrades at military bases.

“A full range of engineering disciplines is required, including: building and structural design; maritime; aviation; geotechnics; utilities and drainage; highways and access; and landscape design,” Draper says.

“Early multidisciplinary integration is critical, so designs align with construction logistics and the operational constraints of a live military site.”

McGlynn agrees, saying: “Civil engineering for defence upgrades demands a blend of traditional and specialised capabilities.

“Engineers are often required to design against a diverse and challenging set of criteria, including Class 1 Nuclear structures, blast resistance, secure IT infrastructure and support for advanced weapon systems, often within constrained or legacy environments.

“Projects also require phased construction to maintain operational continuity, and solutions that accommodate remote or logistically complex locations.”

Designers and contractors face a variety of obstacles when carrying out upgrades at military bases, including the fact that many bases are almost a century old, and operations need to continue regardless of construction works.

On the point about “legacy environments”, Knutson says many defence estate assets are old and do not meet modern standards of construction.

“As soon as you get into doing any kind of appreciable upgrades or modernisations, you’re immediately going to be drawn into having to look at current code,” he says.

“You’re going to have to upgrade and bring that facility to code,” Knutson says, explaining that it could include fire protection, structural strength, electrical standards and accessibility considerations for disabled people.

McGlynn adds: “Designers and contractors face several challenges, including maintaining base operations during construction, adapting to rapidly shifting defence priorities, and navigating complex logistics in remote or sensitive areas.

“Regulatory alignment across jurisdictions and the need for secure, scalable infrastructure add further complexity.”

He raises another problem, which can arise when working on older assets, where “drawings of legacy infrastructure may not be available or some elements, such as service routing, may not be fully documented”.

Transforming delivery

Operations need to run uninterrupted on military bases, meaning construction works must be planned in a way to enable that.

Draper says: “Construction must be phased carefully to minimise disruption, which can increase cost and complexity. Security requirements, including personnel clearance and handling of protected information, can restrict who is able to work on the site.

“Additionally, availability of specialist skills and regional labour capacity can affect delivery timelines, while changing requirements, complex approvals and annualised budgets add further uncertainty.

“There is currently no single, consolidated forum bringing together the various industry groups, which can make it harder to coordinate learning and present a unified voice for the defence infrastructure sector.”

Referring to the scope of works envisaged by the SDR, she says: “Delivering that work at speed and scale will require industry to expand capacity and adopt new delivery models – longer-term relationships, standardisation, investment in people and plant and much wider use of digital capability and Modern Methods of Construction.”

Civil engineers will need to adopt modular approaches and work collaboratively across procurement and supply chains to deliver on the high ambitions for military expansion, according to McGlynn and Draper.

“To deliver large-scale upgrades efficiently, design and construction processes must embrace transformation,” McGlynn says.

“This includes digitising workflows, adopting modular and prefabricated solutions and transitioning from a transactional contracting model to a more collaborative, enterprise approach.

“Collaborative contracting models and vendor-agnostic approaches can reduce friction and accelerate delivery. AtkinsRéalis advocates for engineering process transformation to ‘drive out time’, enabling faster deployment of capabilities to the front line.”

Draper adds: “Practical measures include procuring long-term delivery partners and portfolio frameworks rather than one-off projects.”

She also says that templated designs and standard components should be used “to avoid duplicated design effort; applying modern methods of construction more widely, not just volumetric modules; and designing for construction from day one so assets are ‘operationalised’ faster.

“Upskilling the supply chain for secure digital collaboration and creating stronger, consolidated industry learning forums would accelerate best practice and create a clearer single voice for the defence infrastructure sector.”

Enclaving

Experts working at the intersection of civil engineering and the military, quoted in this article and beyond, have told NCE that military project managers should consider enclaving when approaching upgrades at high-security defence sites.

Enclaving involves dedicating a section of an existing site for an alternative purpose or where people are allowed to work at a different level of security clearance.

It can be an attractive tool when it’s either expensive and time-consuming to replicate the perimeter security of the existing site at an additional site nearby, or where local geography, such as existing infrastructure or bodies of water, would prevent the outward expansion of the existing site.

Draper confirms that enclaving “and other segregated construction approaches” have been implemented at secure military bases, although “arrangements differ by site and sensitivity”.

Given the choice between having structural elements manufactured at a facility separate from a military site or having an enclave within that site hosting such activities, Knutson says he would prefer the latter.

“That allows you to, for all intents and purposes, control access in and out of the site. You run it as a normal construction site that you would have anywhere else, and that would allow you to be able to control the pace of activity that’s going on.”

Knutson mentions the pace of activity because a lack of high-level security clearance can lead to significant delays while construction workers get checked on their way in and out of secure sites.

Referring to a project he previously worked on, Knutson says: “Contractors were losing two to three hours a day out of a workday, which is only seven hours. You’ve now lost almost half your workday on staff just waiting to get through the gate.

“If you can reduce [those delays], you get more productivity, a lower price and you can still achieve the things that you’re targeting with regard to security aspects.”

He says having an enclave with people who have lower levels of security clearance to enable onsite manufacturing of elements, would “absolutely” be more cost-effective for contractors and clients.

Knutson adds that “if you can reduce the level of [personnel vetting], that opens up a greater pool of people” who can work on projects, reducing issues with recruitment.

Draper also says enclaving can bring efficiency benefits to construction at secure military sites.

“Enclaving – creating a discrete, secure construction zone within or adjacent to a site – can reduce security bottlenecks, simplify logistics and welfare provision for a cleared workforce and thereby shorten programmes or reduce some security-related administrative costs,” she says.

“Whether it reduces net programme cost depends on site geometry, proximity to operations and the specific security sensitivity of the works; a site-specific cost-benefit appraisal is required.”

Given the relative secrecy around MOD estate sites, it can be difficult for civilians to estimate what goes on within them. However, Draper says: “Many sites expected to receive SDR investment are constrained and lack large undeveloped areas, so enclaving is more viable where contiguous space can be segregated without disrupting core operations.

“Any proposal should compare enclaving against other approaches, such as offsite manufacturing with escorted delivery, phased onsite delivery or the traditional approach, to identify the most efficient and secure solution.”

Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.